Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53303 

Sodium acid pyrophosphate (CAS # 

7758–16–9)—for use only as a leavening 

agent. 

* * * * * 

Tetrasodium pyrophosphate (CAS # 

7722–88–5)—for use only in meat 

analog products. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 205.681, paragraph (d)(1) is 

revised to read as follows: 

§ 205.681 Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * (1) Appeals to the 

Administrator must be filed in writing 

and addressed to: Administrator, USDA, 

AMS, c/o NOP Appeals Staff, Stop 0203, 

Room 302-Annex, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–

0203. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 5, 2006. 

Lloyd C. Day, Administrator, 

Agricultural Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. E6–14923 Filed 9–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 1290 

[Docket No. FV06–1290–1 FR] 

RIN 0581–AC59 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule provides regulations 

to implement the Specialty Crop Block 

Grant Program (SCBGP) to enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops. This 

action establishes the eligibility and 

application requirements, the review 

and approval process, and grant 

administration procedures for the 

SCBGP. 

The SCBGP is authorized under 

Section 101 of the Specialty Crops 

Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 

1621 note). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Trista Etzig, Fruit and Vegetable 

Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW., Stop 0243, 

Washington, DC 20250–0243; 

Telephone: (202) 690–4942; Fax: (202) 

690–0102; or e-mail: 

trista.etzig@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Order 12866 

This proposed rule has been 

determined to be not significant for the 

purposes of Executive Order 12866 by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). 

Public Law 104–4 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 

104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State and 

local governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, 

the Agricultural Marketing Service 

(AMS) generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures by State and local 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532). When 

such a statement is needed for a rule, 

section 205 of the UMRA generally 

requires federal agencies to identify and 

consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the 

least costly, most cost-effective, or least 

burdensome alternative that achieves 

the objectives of the rule (2 U.S.C. 

1535). 

This rule contains no Federal 

mandates (under the regulatory 

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for 

State and local governments or the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year. Therefore, this rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

Executive Order 12988 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This action is not intended to 

have retroactive effect. This rule will 

not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. There are no administrative 

procedures which must be exhausted 

prior to any judicial challenge to the 

provisions of this rule. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

This program is listed in the Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance under 

No. 10.169, Specialty Crop Block Grant 

Program. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program is not subject to the 

provisions of Executive Order 12372, 

which requires intergovernmental 

consultation with State and local 

officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR 

part 3015, subpart V published at 48 FR 

29115 (June 24, 1983). 

Executive Order 13132 

It has been determined that this rule 

does not have sufficient Federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment. The 

provisions contained in this rule would 

not have a substantial direct effect on 

States or their political subdivisions or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The AMS certifies that this rule will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities as 

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, Pub. L. 96–534, as amended (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This rule only will 

impact State departments of agriculture 

that apply for grant funds. States 

include the fifty States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico. The States are not small 

entities under the Act. 

Authority for a Specialty Crop Block 

Grant Program 

This program is intended to 

accomplish the goals of increasing fruit, 

vegetable, and nut consumption and 

improving the competitiveness of 

United States specialty crop producers. 

The SCBGP is authorized under section 

101 of the Specialty Crops 

Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 

1621 note). Section 101 directs the 

Secretary of Agriculture to make grants 

to States for each of the fiscal years 2005 

through 2009 to be used by State 

departments of agriculture solely to 

enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops. 

Background 

The Fruit and Vegetable Program will 

periodically announce that applications 

may be submitted for participation in a 

‘‘Specialty Crop Block Grant Program’’

(SCBGP), which will be administered by 

personnel of the Agricultural Marketing 

Service (AMS). 

Periodically, funding may be 

appropriated to the Secretary of 

Agriculture to provide specialty crop 

block grants. To the extent that funds 

are available, each year the AMS will 

publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the program and soliciting 

grant applications. 

Subject to the appropriation of funds, 

each State that submits an application 

that is reviewed and approved by AMS 

is to receive at least $100,000 to 

enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops. In addition, each State 

will receive an amount that represents 

the proportion of the value of specialty 

crop production in the state in relation 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
53304 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

to the national value of specialty crop 

production using the latest available 

complete specialty crop production data 

set in all states whose applications are 

accepted. All 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico are eligible to participate. 

‘‘Specialty crops’’ for the purpose of 

this rule, means fruits and vegetables, 

tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops 

(including floriculture). 

SCBGP applications will be accepted 

from any State department of 

agriculture, including the agency, 

commission, or department of a State 

government responsible for agriculture 

within the State. 

Section 1290.6 prescribes the 

application procedure that includes a 

State plan to indicate how grant funds 

will be utilized to enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops using 

measurable expected outcomes. 

Applications can be submitted for 

projects up to 3 calendar years in length. 

Applicants wishing to serve multi-state 

projects must submit the project in their 

State plan indicating which State is 

taking the coordinating role and the 

percent of the budget covered by each 

State. 

Section 1290.8 prescribes that under 

the SCBGP program, the AMS will enter 

into agreements with those State 

departments of agriculture or other 

entities that are responsible for 

agriculture within a State whose 

applications have been approved. The 

State department of agriculture will 

assure that the State will comply with 

the requirements of the State plan. The 

State department of agriculture will also 

assure that funds shall supplement the 

expenditure of State funds in support of 

specialty crops grown in that State, 

rather than replace State funds. 

The AMS will provide the entire 

funding to the approved applicants by a 

one-time combined electronic transfer. 

SCBGP participants must deposit funds 

in federally insured, interest-bearing 

accounts and remit to AMS interest 

earned in accordance with 7 CFR 3015 

and 3016. 

Section 1290.9 prescribes the 

reporting and oversight requirements. If 

the grant period is more than one year, 

State departments of agriculture are 

required to submit an annual 

performance report(s) and a final 

performance report evaluating their 

project(s)using the measurable outcomes 

presented in the State plan, as well as 

a final financial report. If the grant 

period is less than a year, State 

departments of agriculture are required 

to submit a final performance report and 

a final financial report. 

Section 1290.10 prescribes the audit 

requirements of the State. The State is 

accountable for conducting annual 

financial audits of the expenditures of 

all SCBGP funds. Not later than 30 days 

after completion of the audit, the State 

shall submit a copy of the audit results 

with an executive summary to AMS. 

Notice of this action was published in 

the Federal Register on April 20, 2006. 

Interested persons were invited to 

submit written comments until May 22, 

2006. During the comment period, 

eighty-two comments were received 

from members of Congress, producers of 

specialty crops, marketers of specialty 

crops, trade organizations, and 

interested consumers. Three comments 

were received after the comment period, 

but they did not introduce any new 

issues AMS has considered each 

comment timely submitted, and they are 

discussed below. 

Summary of Comments Received 

Purpose and Scope 

Two commenters stated that the rule 

is not consistent in defining the 

program’s purpose to ‘‘enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops.’’ The 

commenters went on to say that the rule 

also states the program’s purpose as 

‘‘increasing fruit, vegetable and nut 

consumption and improving the 

competitiveness of specialty crops.’’ The 

Act includes a provision on Findings 

and Purpose (Sec. 2) and a provision 

concerning the Availability and Purpose 

of Grants (Sec. 101(a)). The statements 

appeared in the supplementary 

information and Paperwork Reduction 

Act sections of the proposed rule and 

are within the meaning of these sections 

of the Act. Accordingly, no changes 

have been made as a result of these 

comments. 

One commenter wanted clarification 

that funding is only to support specialty 

crops grown in the U.S. Another 

commenter asked if funds could be 

spent on projects in foreign markets to 

enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 

specialty crops. A purpose of the Act is 

to improve the competitiveness of 

United States specialty crop producers. 

Accordingly, this program only supports 

specialty crops grown in the United 

States. Furthermore, the Specialty Crop 

Block Grant Program funding may 

support U.S. grown specialty crops in 

both domestic and foreign markets. 

Eight commenters requested reference 

to 7 CFR Part 3016 in Section 1290.1 be 

removed because it restricts grant funds 

from being used for advertising, public 

relations, selling, and marketing. Part 

3016 refers to OMB Circular A–87 

which provides that advertising and 

public relations costs are allowable 

when they are undertaken for ‘‘purposes 

necessary to meet the requirements of 

the Federal award’’ (i.e. if the purpose 

of the grant is to promote a specialty 

crop, then it is allowable to use grant 

funds for advertising the specialty crop). 

Accordingly, no change is made as a 

result of these comments. 

Definitions 

USDA received 10 comments on the 

definition of ‘‘specialty crops’’. The 

commenters recommended the 

following be included in the specialty 

crop definition: Low growing dense 

perennial turfgrass sod, processed fruit 

and vegetable products, Christmas trees, 

potatoes, dry beans, sugar beets, grapes 

for wine, vegetable seeds, maple syrup, 

apple cider, certified organic crops, flax, 

dry peas, exotic fruits and vegetables 

grown in Hawaii such as coffee, cacoa, 

seed crops, algae and seaweed, kava, 

ginger root, vanilla, lavender, honey, 

and sugar cane. While in some instances 

including examples in a definition may 

improve clarity, we believe that 

additions beyond the language reflected 

in the Act would be counter productive 

given the numerous commodities that 

come within the definition of specialty 

crops. USDA will work with State 

departments of agriculture in providing 

further assistance with this definition. 

Fourteen comments were received 

requesting that a definition for 

‘‘enhancing the competitiveness’’ of 

specialty crops be included in the 

regulations. AMS believes that these 

comments have merit and a definition 

has been included in the regulations for 

clarity at § 1290.2(c). Examples of 

enhancing the competitiveness of 

specialty crops include, but are not 

limited to: Research, promotion, 

marketing, nutrition, trade 

enhancement, food safety, food security, 

plant health programs, education, ‘‘buy 

local’’ programs, increased 

consumption, increased innovation, 

improved efficiency and reduced costs 

of distribution systems, environmental 

concerns and conservation, product 

development, and developing 

cooperatives. 

Nine comments were received 

concerning how to incorporate outcome 

measures in a State plan. In order to 

provide additional clarity concerning 

this matter, examples of outcome 

measures may include per capita 

consumption, consumer awareness as a 

percent of target market reached, market 

penetration based on sales by 

geographic region, dollar value of 

exports, or Web site hits. Furthermore, 

for clarity, the final rule at § 1290.6(b)(7) 

has been modified to state that expected 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53305 

measurable outcomes may be long term 

that exceed the grant period and that 

timeframes should be included in the 

State plan when long term outcome 

measures will be achieved. 

Eligible Grant Projects 

Seventy-one comments were received 

from processors and wineries to remove 

the last sentence of § 1290.4(b) which 

provides that ‘‘priority will be given to 

fresh specialty crop projects.’’ These 

comments have merit. The Act does not 

restrict the term specialty crops to only 

fresh commodities and, as such, both 

fresh and processed specialty crop 

producers would benefit from the block 

grants provided for in this program. 

Accordingly, this sentence has been 

removed from § 1290.4(b) in the final 

rule. 

USDA received four comments on the 

timeframe of eligible grant projects. One 

commenter requested projects longer 

than three years should be allowed 

without the requirement to obtain 

approval from USDA. Two commenters 

recommended project deadlines be set 

by the State. One commenter pointed 

out that the authorizing statute does not 

specify a time constraint of three years. 

Based upon experience with other grant 

programs, we consider three years as 

appropriate and reasonable. 

Furthermore, USDA intends to track 

projects through performance reports 

during the grant period. The grant 

period is established by the longest 

approved project in the State plan, so if 

a project goes beyond the grant period, 

AMS must be notified. Secondly, the 

final rule in § 1290.4(b) has been 

clarified to state, for cause, an extension 

of the grant period not to exceed three 

years may be granted by AMS on a case 

by case basis with a written request 

from the State. 

Another commenter recommended 

USDA give extra time for evaluation of 

projects in addition to three years. State 

departments of agriculture have 

appropriate time for project evaluation. 

Reporting requirements are based on the 

grant period established by the longest 

project submitted and approved in the 

State plan which can not exceed three 

years. Some projects may be completed 

prior to the annual or final reporting 

period. Therefore, State departments of 

agriculture will have at least 90 days, if 

not more, to evaluate their projects and 

submit performance reports to USDA. 

This commenter also requested that a 

definition for project activities should 

be added to the regulations. We 

disagree. Each State department of 

agriculture has discretion to select 

projects to include in their State plan 

and, as such, providing examples of 

project activities in the regulations 

could suggest limitation and a 

narrowing of the range of project 

activities. 

Restrictions and Limitations on Grant 

Funds 

Two comments were received 

concerning the language in § 1290.5(c) 

‘‘grant funds shall supplement the 

expenditure of State funds in support of 

specialty crops grown in that State, 

rather than replace State funds.’’ One 

commenter stated ‘‘it is unrealistic for 

programs not to cross between state 

funding and federal funding.’’ Another 

commenter wanted clarification if the 

language prevents a State from creating 

a new state program that would support 

specialty crops. This language in 

§ 1290.5(c) of the rule reflects the 

statutory language that appears in Sec. 

101(d)(3) of the Act which provides that 

a grant application should contain an 

assurance that grant funds received 

under this section shall supplement the 

expenditure of State funds in support of 

specialty crops grown in that State, 

rather than replace State funds. Under 

section § 1290.5(c) of the rule, grant 

funds can supplement existing programs 

or create new programs, but not replace 

state funds. Accordingly, no changes are 

made as a result of these comments. 

Electronic Transfer of Funds 

Three comments were received on the 

electronic transfer of funds. One 

commenter recommended direct 

payments be made to a third party. 

Another commenter recommended 

USDA award funding on a fixed-based 

or deliverable-based basis and another 

commenter explained one State has a 

policy that state funds are spent on 

projects and then the State seeks a one 

time reimbursement of federal dollars at 

the end of the projects. Since the grant 

agreements are made with the State 

department of agriculture, it is 

appropriate that the funds will be 

transferred to the State department of 

agriculture after the grant agreement is 

signed. The State department of 

agriculture can then disperse the funds 

based upon their approved State plans. 

Completed Application 

Comments from seventeen 

organizations were received on the 

application process. Seven commenters 

recommended USDA notify the State 

departments of agriculture on the exact 

amount of funds they are to receive 

prior to submitting State plans. USDA 

intends to notify the State departments 

of agriculture of the exact amount of 

grant funds they may receive in the 

Notice for Applications, which will be 

published in the Federal Register soon 

after publication of this final rule. 

In addition, three comments were 

received recommending USDA explain 

how funds will be distributed if one or 

more States do not file an application or 

if an application is denied. One 

commenter recommended funds not 

distributed be rolled over and made 

available the following fiscal year to that 

respective State who did not apply the 

previous year and another commenter 

recommended that funds not distributed 

be allocated pro rata to all other States. 

The commenter went on further to 

request that USDA provide for an appeal 

process by a State department of 

agriculture should USDA deny a State 

plan. With regard to rolling over funds 

to the following fiscal year, States who 

do not apply for or do not request all 

available funding during the specified 

grant application period will forfeit all 

or that portion of available funding not 

requested for that application year. 

Finally, Sec. 101(f) of the Act provides 

that the Secretary of Agriculture may 

accept or reject applications for a grant. 

Accordingly, no change is made in the 

regulations concerning additional 

processes. However, we are clarifying 

§ 1290.7 concerning review of 

applications to include language 

concerning not only accepting 

applications, but also rejecting them as 

well. Nonetheless, USDA will work 

closely with State departments of 

agriculture to assist applicants in 

meeting deadlines. 

Ten commenters recommended that 

the application process be adjusted 

because State departments of agriculture 

need time to work with grant partners 

and decide on projects. In addition, 10 

comments were received recommending 

USDA allow State departments of 

agriculture flexibility to establish 

granting processes, collaborate with 

subgrantees, and select projects based 

on the unique needs and priorities of 

that State. Under the Specialty Crop 

Block Grant Program, State departments 

of agriculture must submit their State 

plans within one year after the 

publication of the Notice for 

Applications. This one year period is 

reasonable and provides State 

departments of agriculture a sufficient 

amount of time to establish granting 

processes, collaborate with subgrantees, 

decide on projects, and develop and 

submit their State plan to USDA. 

Accordingly, no changes to the 

regulations are made as a result of these 

comments. 

Another commenter recommended 

post-approval adjustments to allow 

States to participate in multi-state 

projects. State departments of 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
53306 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

agriculture will have one year to work 

with other State departments of 

agriculture to coordinate multi-state 

projects prior to submitting State plans. 

Again, a one year period is appropriate 

and will provide a reasonable amount of 

time for participation in multi-state 

projects. Therefore, no change to the 

regulations is made as a result of this 

comment. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification on the number of State 

plans that need to be submitted to 

USDA. A State department of 

agriculture must submit one plan to 

USDA that includes all projects and 

submit annual performance reports and 

a final report that summarizes progress 

on all projects in the State plan. This 

comment has merit and has been 

clarified in the final rule in § 1290.6(b) 

and § 1290.9. 

One commenter asked for guidance on 

what is an acceptable percentage for 

project administrative costs. Based upon 

experience with other grant programs, 

we consider administrative costs not 

exceeding 10 percent of any proposed 

budget as appropriate and reasonable. If 

administrative costs exceed 10 percent, 

a State department of agriculture should 

include a justification in their State 

plan. This comment has merit and 

§ 1290.6(b)(4) has been clarified 

accordingly. One commenter asked if a 

State department of agriculture may 

charge the paperwork burden costs and 

audit costs to administrative expenses. 

These are acceptable administrative 

expenses. While these costs may be 

considered acceptable, USDA will work 

with States concerning acceptable costs 

on a case-by-case basis. 

Five commenters wanted clarification 

that an application would be reviewed 

and approved by USDA before the grant 

funds are dispersed. These comments 

have merit and this has been clarified at 

§ 1290.8 in the final rule. 

Review of Grant Applications 

Eight comments were received on the 

grant application review process stating 

USDA should not need to approve each 

project and the State department of 

agriculture should have flexibility in 

selecting projects. Each State 

department of agriculture has discretion 

to select projects to include in their 

State plan, while final review and 

approval of the State plan resides with 

USDA. 

Grant Agreements 

One commenter suggested language 

be added to the rule to indicate ‘‘it shall 

be allowable to include fee-based or 

deliverable-based projects as part of an 

approvable grant agreement with the 

State department of agriculture.’’ A 

State department of agriculture is 

responsible for selecting the type of 

projects that enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops to 

include in their State plan subject to 

USDA review and approval. We believe 

that it is preferable to retain a measure 

of flexibility in the regulations. 

Including such language in the 

regulations is not necessary. 

Accordingly, no change to the 

regulations is made as a result of this 

comment. 

Reporting and Oversight Requirements 

One commenter wanted language 

added to the rule to indicate the 

allowance for subgrantees, and whether 

subgrantees would be subject to the 

same reporting requirements and 

financial audit requirements of the 

applicant as stated previously. The State 

department of agriculture is responsible 

for selecting the type of projects that 

enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops and whether to include 

subgrantees or not. Retaining a measure 

of flexibility in the regulations is 

preferable. As such, the recommended 

language is not necessary in the 

regulations. Whether subgrantees are 

included or not in a project is a matter 

for a State department of agriculture to 

decide. The State department of 

agriculture remains accountable for the 

project reporting. 

Audit Requirements 

Four comments were received 

regarding the requirement to follow 

Government Auditing Standards as 

being costly. Two commenters 

recommended the Single Audit Act 

should oversee the audit requirement. 

Two commenters asked for clarification 

on who would perform the audit, how 

the audit requirement affected 

subgrantees, and if the audit was fiscal 

or performance based. Section 101 (h) of 

the Specialty Crops Competitiveness 

Act provides that the State shall 

conduct an audit of the expenditures of 

grant funds by the State. The Act further 

provides that not later than 30 days after 

the completion of the audit, the State 

shall submit a copy of the audit to the 

USDA. Accordingly, the State and not 

the subgrantee is accountable for audit 

requirements. Furthermore, under this 

program, an audit is required to be 

conducted. Whether the Single Audit 

Act applies or not to an eligible grantee, 

audit results must be provided to AMS 

for the SCBGP grant expenditures. 

Government Auditing Standards are 

applicable as provided for under the Act 

as well as revised OMB Circular A–133, 

‘‘Audits of States, Local Governments, 

and Non-Profit Organizations.’’

General 

One commenter asked for a cost 

benefit analysis on the SCBGP. The 

SCBGP is authorized by statute to 

enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops. We have conducted the 

required analyses for the rulemaking, 

which appear as part of this document. 

The commenter also recommended 

records be kept for seven years. We 

disagree. State departments of 

agriculture will be required to retain 

records pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 

years after completion of the grant 

period or until final resolution of any 

audit findings or litigation claims 

relating to the SCBGP. This is a part of 

normal business practice and consistent 

with USDA regulations (7 CFR parts 

3015 and 3016). 

Finally, we have added for clarity a 

paragraph (f) to § 1290.9 concerning the 

three year record retention period. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.), the AMS had previously 

submitted this information collection to 

OMB and obtained approval of this 

information collection under OMB 

number 0581–0236. 

The information collection 

requirements in this request are applied 

only to those State departments of 

agriculture who voluntarily participate 

in the SCBGP. The information 

collected is needed for the 

implementation of the SCBGP, to 

determine a State department of 

agriculture’s eligibility in the program, 

and to certify that grant participants are 

complying with applicable program 

regulations. Data collected is the 

minimum information necessary to 

effectively carry out the requirements of 

the program, and to fulfill the intent of 

Section 101 of the Competitiveness Act 

of 2004. 

State departments of agriculture who 

wish to participate in the SCBGP will 

have to submit standard form SF–424, 

‘‘Application for Federal Assistance’’, 

approved under OMB#4040–0004. After 

receipt of the SF–424, the State 

department of agriculture will have to 

submit SF–424B, ‘‘Assurances-NonConstruction Programs’’, approved 

under OMB#0348–0040 as part of the 

grant agreement to the AMS. The State 

department of agriculture will then 

submit to the AMS 90 days after the 

expiration date of the grant period 

SF269 ‘‘Financial Status Report (Long 

Form)’’, if the project had program 

income, approved under OMB#0348–


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53307 

0039, or SF269A ‘‘Financial Status 

Report (Short Form)’’, approved under 

OMB#0348–0038. 

Completed applications must also 

include a State plan to show how grant 

funds will be utilized to enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops. 

After approval of a grant application, 

State departments of agriculture will 

have to enter into a grant agreement 

with AMS by reading and signing the 

grant agreement. 

The grant period is not to exceed 

three calendar years, therefore State 

departments of agriculture will have to 

submit to AMS annual performance 

reports within 90 days after the first 

year of the grant agreement and within 

90 days after the second year of the 

grant agreement. 

If a project goes beyond the grant 

period, not to exceed three years, a State 

department of agriculture will have to 

submit a letter to AMS requesting a 

grant period extension. 

A State department of agriculture will 

have to submit a final performance 

report to AMS within 90 days following 

the expiration date of the grant period. 

No later than 60 days after expiration 

of the grant period, a State will be 

required to conduct an audit of SCBGP 

grant funds. An audit report will be 

required to be submitted to AMS no 

later than 30 days after completion of 

the audit. 

The SCBGP is expected to accomplish 

the goal of enhancing the 

competitiveness of specialty crops. 

This program would not be 

maintained by any other agency, 

therefore, the requested information will 

not be available from any other existing 

records. 

AMS is committed to compliance 

with the Government Paperwork 

Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires 

Government agencies in general to 

provide the public the option of 

submitting information or transacting 

business electronically to the maximum 

extent possible. The SF forms and State 

plan can be filled out electronically and 

printed out for submission or filled out 

electronically and submitted as an 

attachment through Grants.gov. The 

annual performance reports, final 

performance report, and the audit 

report/executive summary can be 

submitted electronically. The grant 

agreement requires an original signature 

and can be submitted by mail. 

Finally, State departments of 

agriculture will be required to retain 

records pertaining to the SCBGP for 3 

years after completion of the grant 

period or until final resolution of any 

audit findings or litigation claims 

relating to the SCBGP. This is a part of 

normal business practice and consistent 

with USDA regulations (7 CFR Parts 

3015 and 3016). 

The estimated one-time cost for all 

State departments of agriculture in 

completing the information collection is 

$9,980. This total cost was calculated by 

multiplying the estimated 499 total 

burden hours by $20 per hour (a sum 

deemed reasonable, shall the 

respondents be compensated for this 

time). 

Comments were invited on the 

information collection in the April 20, 

2006, notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The deadline for comments ended on 

June 19, 2006. Five comments were 

received stating the time estimated to 

prepare applications and reports is 

understated because many hours of 

planning would have to occur before a 

State department of agriculture could 

prepare an application that might 

include multiple projects and 

subgrantees. AMS recognized that there 

would be planning involved in the 

preparation of the information 

collection and included this time into 

the average burden hours per response. 

AMS believes that the burden hours 

stated in the rule are accurate because 

the burden hours are based on the 

average time it takes the 52 State 

departments of agriculture to complete 

the information collection requirements. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1290 

Specialty crop block grants, 

Agriculture, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 7, Chapter XI of the 

Code of Federal Regulations is amended 

as follows: 

■ 1. A new part 1290 is added to read 

as follows: 

PART 1290—SPECIALTY CROP 

BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 

Sec. 

1290.1 Purpose and scope. 

1290.2 Definitions. 

1290.3 Eligible grant applicants. 

1290.4 Eligible grant project. 

1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on grant 

funds. 

1290.6 Completed application. 

1290.7 Review of grant applications. 

1290.8 Grant agreements. 

1290.9 Reporting and oversight 

requirements. 

1290.10 Audit requirements. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1621 note. 

§ 1290.1 Purpose and scope. 

Pursuant to the authority conferred by 

Section 101 of the Specialty Crops 

Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 

1621 note) AMS will make grants to 

States to enhance the competitiveness of 

specialty crops in accordance with the 

terms and conditions set forth herein 

and other applicable federal statutes and 

regulations including, but not limited 

to, 7 CFR Part 3016. 

§ 1290.2 Definitions. 

(a) AMS means the Agricultural 

Marketing Service of the U. S. 

Department of Agriculture. 

(b) Application means application for 

Specialty Crop Block Grant Program. 

(c) ‘‘Enhancing the competitiveness’’

of specialty crops includes, but is not 

limited to: Research, promotion, 

marketing, nutrition, trade 

enhancement, food safety, food security, 

plant health programs, education, ‘‘buy 

local’’ programs, increased 

consumption, increased innovation, 

improved efficiency and reduced costs 

of distribution systems, environmental 

concerns and conservation, product 

development, and developing 

cooperatives. 

(d) Grant period means the period of 

time from when the grant agreement is 

signed until the completion of all 

SCBGP projects submitted in the State 

plan. 

(e) Grantee means the government to 

which a grant is awarded and which is 

accountable for the use of the funds 

provided. The grantee is the entire legal 

entity even if only a particular 

component of the entity is designated in 

the grant agreement. 

(f) Outcome measure means an event 

or condition that is external to the 

project and that is of direct importance 

to the intended beneficiaries and/or the 

public. 

(g) Project means all proposed 

activities to be funded by the SCBGP. 

(h) Specialty crop means fruits and 

vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and 

nursery crops (including floriculture). 

(i) State means the fifty States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

(j) State department of agriculture 

means the agency, commission, or 

department of a State government 

responsible for agriculture within the 

State. 

(k) Subgrantee means the government 

or other legal entity to which a subgrant 

is awarded and which is accountable to 

the grantee for the use of funds 

provided. 

§ 1290.3 Eligible grant applicants. 

Eligible grant applicants are State 

departments of agriculture from the fifty 

states, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
53308 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 1290.4 Eligible grant project. 

(a) To be eligible for a grant, the 

project(s) must enhance the 

competitiveness of specialty crops. 

(b) To be eligible for a grant, the 

project(s) must be completed 3 calendar 

years after the grant agreement 

prescribed in § 1290.8 is signed. The 

grant period is established by the 

longest approved project submitted in 

the State plan. However, for cause, an 

extension of the grant period not to 

exceed three years may be granted by 

AMS on a case by case basis with a 

written request from the State. 

§ 1290.5 Restrictions and limitations on 

grant funds. 

(a) Grant funds may not be used to 

fund political activities in accordance 

with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 

U.S.C. 1501–1508 and 7324–7326). 

(b) All travel expenses associated with 

SCBGP projects must follow Federal 

Travel Regulations (41 CFR Chapters 

300 through 304) unless State travel 

requirements are in place. 

(c) Grant funds shall supplement the 

expenditure of State funds in support of 

specialty crops grown in that State, 

rather than replace State funds. 

§ 1290.6 Completed application. 

Completed applications shall be clear 

and succinct and shall include the 

following documentation satisfactory to 

AMS. 

(a) Completed applications must 

include an SF–424 ‘‘Application for 

Federal Assistance’’. 

(b) Completed applications must also 

include one State plan to show how 

grant funds will be utilized to enhance 

the competitiveness of specialty crops. 

The state plan shall include the 

following: 

(1) Cover page. Include the lead 

agency for administering the plan and 

an abstract of 200 words or less for each 

proposed project. 

(2) Project purpose. Clearly state the 

specific issue, problem, interest, or need 

to be addressed. Explain why each 

project is important and timely. 

(3) Potential impact. Discuss the 

number of people or operations affected, 

the intended beneficiaries of each 

project, and/or potential economic 

impact if such data are available and 

relevant to the project(s). 

(4) Financial feasibility. For each 

project, provide budget estimates for the 

total project cost. Indicate what 

percentage of the budget covers 

administrative costs. Administrative 

costs should not exceed 10 percent of 

any proposed budget. Provide a 

justification if administrative costs are 

higher than 10 percent. 

(5) Expected measurable outcomes. 

Describe at least two discrete, 

quantifiable, and measurable outcomes 

that directly and meaningfully support 

each project’s purpose. The outcome 

measures must define an event or 

condition that is external to the project 

and that is of direct importance to the 

intended beneficiaries and/or the 

public. 

(6) Goal(s). Describe the overall 

goal(s) in one or two sentences for each 

project. 

(7) Work plan. Explain briefly how 

each goal and measurable outcome will 

be accomplished for each project. Be 

clear about who will do the work. 

Include appropriate time lines. 

Expected measurable outcomes may be 

long term that exceed the grant period. 

If so, provide a timeframe when long 

term outcome measure will be achieved. 

(8) Project oversight. Describe the 

oversight practices that provide 

sufficient knowledge of grant activities 

to ensure proper and efficient 

administration. 

(9) Project commitment. Describe how 

all grant partners commit to and work 

toward the goals and outcome measures 

of the proposed project(s). 

(10) Multi-state projects. If the project 

is a multi-state project, describe how the 

States are going to collaborate 

effectively with related projects. Each 

State participating in the project should 

submit the project in their State plan 

indicating which State is taking the 

coordinating role and the percent of the 

budget covered by each State. 

§ 1290.7 Review of grant applications. 

Applications will be reviewed and 

approved or rejected as appropriate for 

conformance with the provisions in 

§ 1290.6. AMS may request the 

applicant provide for additional 

information or clarification. 

§ 1290.8 Grant agreements. 

(a) After review and approval of a 

grant application, AMS will enter into a 

grant agreement with the State 

department of agriculture. 

(b) AMS grant agreements will 

include at a minimum the following: 

(1) The projects in the approved State 

plan. 

(2) Total amount of Federal financial 

assistance that will be advanced. 

(3) Terms and conditions pursuant to 

which AMS will fund the project(s). 

§ 1290.9 Reporting and oversight 

requirements. 

(a) An annual performance report will 

be required of all State departments of 

agriculture 90 days after the end of the 

first year of the date of the signed grant 

agreement and each year until the 

expiration date of the grant period. If the 

grant period is one year or less, then 

only a final performance report (see 

paragragh (b) of this section) is required. 

The annual performance report shall 

include the following: 

(1) Briefly summarize activities 

performed, targets, and/or performance 

goals achieved during the reporting 

period for each project. 

(2) Note unexpected delays or 

impediments as well as favorable or 

unusual developments for each project. 

(3) Outline work to be performed 

during the next reporting period for 

each project. 

(4) Comment on the level of grant 

funds expended to date for each project. 

(b) A final performance report will be 

required by the State department of 

agriculture within 90 days following the 

expiration date of the grant period. The 

final progress report shall include the 

following: 

(1) An outline of the issue, problem, 

interest, or need for each project. 

(2) How the issue or problem was 

approached via the project(s). 

(3) How the goals of each project were 

achieved. 

(4) Results, conclusions, and lessons 

learned for each project. 

(5) How progress has been made to 

achieve long term outcome measures for 

each project. 

(6) Additional information available 

(e.g. publications, Web sites). 

(7) Contact person for each project 

with telephone number and e-mail 

address. 

(c) A final SF–269A ‘‘Financial Status 

Report (Short Form)’’ (SF–269 

‘‘Financial Status Report (Long Form)’’

if the project(s) had program income) is 

required within 90 days following the 

expiration date of the grant period. 

(d) AMS will monitor States, as it 

determines necessary, to assure that 

projects are completed in accordance 

with the approved State plan. If AMS, 

after reasonable notice to a State, finds 

that there has been a failure by the State 

to comply substantially with any 

provision or requirement of the State 

plan, AMS may disqualify, for one or 

more years, the State from receipt of 

future grants under the SCBGP. 

(e) States shall diligently monitor 

performance to ensure that time 

schedules are being met, project work 

within designated time periods is being 

accomplished, and other performance 

measures are being achieved. 

(f) State departments of agriculture 

shall retain records pertaining to the 

SCBGP for 3 years after completion of 

the grant period or until final resolution 

of any audit findings or litigation claims 

relating to the SCBGP. 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 53309 

§ 1290.10 Audit requirements. 

The State is accountable for 

conducting a financial audit of the 

expenditures of all SCBGP funds. The 

State shall submit to AMS not later than 

30 days after completion of the audit, a 

copy of the audit results. 

Dated: September 6, 2006. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–7580 Filed 9–6–06; 4:24 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM315; Special Conditions No. 

25–327–SC] 

Special Conditions: Airbus Model 

A380–800 Airplane; Emergency Exit 

Arrangement—Outside Viewing 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Airbus A380–800 

airplane. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes. Many of these novel or 

unusual design features are associated 

with the complex systems and the 

configuration of the airplane, including 

its full-length double deck. For these 

design features, the applicable 

airworthiness regulations do not contain 

adequate or appropriate safety standards 

regarding outside viewing from 

emergency exits. These special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

Additional special conditions will be 

issued for other novel or unusual design 

features of the Airbus Model A380–800 

airplane. 

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date 

of these special conditions is August 28, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Holly Thorson, FAA, International 

Branch, ANM–116, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, Washington 98055–4056; 

telephone (425) 227–1357; facsimile 

(425) 227–1149. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Airbus applied for FAA certification/ 

validation of the provisionallydesignated Model A3XX–100 in its 

letter AI/L 810.0223/98, dated August 

12, 1998, to the FAA. Application for 

certification by the Joint Aviation 

Authorities (JAA) of Europe had been 

made on January 16, 1998, reference AI/ 

L 810.0019/98. In its letter to the FAA, 

Airbus requested an extension to the 5- 

year period for type certification in 

accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(c). 

The request was for an extension to a 

7-year period, using the date of the 

initial application letter to the JAA as 

the reference date. The reason given by 

Airbus for the request for extension is 

related to the technical challenges, 

complexity, and the number of new and 

novel features on the airplane. On 

November 12, 1998, the Manager, 

Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR–100, 

granted Airbus’ request for the 7-year 

period, based on the date of application 

to the JAA. 

In its letter AI/LE–A 828.0040/99 

Issue 3, dated July 20, 2001, Airbus 

stated that its target date for type 

certification of the Model A380–800 had 

been moved from May 2005, to January 

2006, to match the delivery date of the 

first production airplane. In a 

subsequent letter (AI/L 810.0223/98 

issue 3, dated January 27, 2006), Airbus 

stated that its target date for type 

certification is October 2, 2006. In 

accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(d)(2), 

Airbus chose a new application date of 

December 20, 1999, and requested that 

the 7-year certification period which 

had already been approved be 

continued. The FAA has reviewed the 

part 25 certification basis for the Model 

A380–800 airplane, and no changes are 

required based on the new application 

date. 

The Model A380–800 airplane will be 

an all-new, four-engine jet transport 

airplane with a full double-deck, twoaisle cabin. The maximum takeoff 

weight will be 1.235 million pounds 

with a typical three-class layout of 555 

passengers. 

Type Certification Basis 

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, 

Airbus must show that the Model A380–

800 airplane meets the applicable 

provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as 

amended by Amendments 25–1 through 

25–98. If the Administrator finds that 

the applicable airworthiness regulations 

do not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for the Airbus A380–

800 airplane because of novel or 

unusual design features, special 

conditions are prescribed under the 

provisions of 14 CFR 21.16. 

In addition to the applicable 

airworthiness regulations and special 

conditions, the Airbus Model A380–800 

airplane must comply with the fuel vent 

and exhaust emission requirements of 

14 CFR part 34 and the noise 

certification requirements of 14 CFR 

part 36. In addition, the FAA must issue 

a finding of regulatory adequacy 

pursuant to section 611 of Public Law 

93–574, the ‘‘Noise Control Act of 

1972.’’

Special conditions, as defined in 14 

CFR 11.19, are issued in accordance 

with 14 CFR 11.38 and become part of 

the type certification basis in 

accordance with 14 CFR 21.17(a)(2). 

Special conditions are initially 

applicable to the model for which they 

are issued. Should the type certificate 

for that model be amended later to 

include any other model that 

incorporates the same novel or unusual 

design feature, the special conditions 

would also apply to the other model 

under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101. 

Discussion of Novel or Unusual Design 

Features 

Emergency evacuations are generally 

associated with adverse conditions, 

such as a fire outside the airplane. 

Because those adverse conditions may 

pose an immediate threat to the 

occupants of the airplane, it is often 

necessary to avoid opening emergency 

exits that would otherwise be usable. 

For this reason, it would be extremely 

useful to have a viewing window or 

other means of assessing the outside 

conditions to determine whether to 

open a particular emergency exit. 

The regulations governing the 

certification of the A380 do not 

adequately address a full-length double 

deck airplane in terms of the exit of 

passengers in an emergency and a 

viewing window or other means of 

assessing the outside conditions to 

determine whether to open an 

emergency exit. Therefore, special 

conditions are needed to ensure that 

each emergency exit has a means to 

permit viewing of the conditions 

outside the exit when the exit is closed. 

These special conditions are based upon 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

96–9 and Amendment 25–116, effective 

November 26, 2004, which adopted a 

similar requirement into § 25.809(a). 

Discussion of Comments 

Notice of Proposed Special 

Conditions No. 25–05–10–SC, 

pertaining to Emergency Exit 

Arrangement—Outside Viewing, was 

published in the Federal Register on 


bjneal on PROD1PC71 with RULES